Downloading is a human right.

[chikusho]

Those people are getting paid because their service is valuable and worth paying for. That value is inherent in the salability of their products. If people don't buy the products, then that value is nil. Not only that, there's no money to pay the artist.

So you can live in some fantasy world where screwing over the publisher is not screwing over the artist... but some of us recognize that it is removing the intrinsic value in the artists work--and thus their ability to make money.

Those people are paid because there's an assumption by publishers that their skill will produce something that people are willing to pay for. If people are _not_ willing to pay for it (for whatever reason) then that value is nil.

Your argument was implying that all creative works would cease to exist if noone was paying specifically for the creation of every single copyrighted, company controlled intellectual property.

No, they only create things when you insert food, which they buy with coins.

... And said coins can come from exactly _any source_ that has precisely _none of the things_ to do with the art they create.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

I'll settle this with simple math.

*Googles Dark Souls torrent*
*Sees it at 1202 seeders*
*Checks the price on steam which is 40 dollars*
*Adds up the math*

40 x 1202 = 48,080.

that's 48,080 dollars that the company didn't get because people didn't buy the game. This isn't also not counting leechers. So it could be double the money loss, or even triple.

That's (i'm going to round up to 50,000 dollars just because it's easier to say) 50,000 dollars the company didn't get because you choose to "download a copy" of the game. So therefor it's stealing.

I can't believe something so common, and simple needs to be explained.

If you're downloading something for free that someone else still gets royalties for, or under the copy right law protection. YOU ARE STEALING MONEY FROM THAT PERSON.

Fuck. How can people be this stupid boggles me.

 

[Entitled]

I'll settle this with simple math.

*Googles Dark Souls torrent*
*Sees it at 1202 seeders*
*Checks the price on steam which is 40 dollars*
*Adds up the math*

40 x 1202 = 48,080.

that's 48,080 dollars that the company didn't get because people didn't buy the game. This isn't also not counting leechers. So it could be double the money loss, or even triple.

That's (i'm going to round up to 50,000 dollars just because it's easier to say) 50,000 dollars the company didn't get because you choose to "download a copy" of the game. So therefor it's stealing.

I can't believe something so common, and simple needs to be explained.

Make that 48,081. Although I didn't torrent Dark Souls, I stole it, by trying it out at a friend's house just before planning to buy it and deciding that I don't need it after all.

 

[Nielas]

Anyone who makes a good product will be rewarded.

How will they be rewarded? From what source will this monetary reward come from?

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

I'll settle this with simple math.

*Googles Dark Souls torrent*
*Sees it at 1202 seeders*
*Checks the price on steam which is 40 dollars*
*Adds up the math*

40 x 1202 = 48,080.

that's 48,080 dollars that the company didn't get because people didn't buy the game. This isn't also not counting leechers. So it could be double the money loss, or even triple.

That's (i'm going to round up to 50,000 dollars just because it's easier to say) 50,000 dollars the company didn't get because you choose to "download a copy" of the game. So therefor it's stealing.

I can't believe something so common, and simple needs to be explained.

Make that 48,081. Although I didn't torrent Dark Souls, I stole it, by trying it out at a friend's house just before planning to buy it and deciding that I don't need it after all.

Don't give me that shit. That argument is completely trash, and completely childish. It literally makes my head at on how immature that argument is. You sound like you belong on Fox News since they always, ALWAYS go too far in one direction.

Just look up Bill O'reily on Gangman Style you'll get what I mean.

As long as you didn't burn a copy of the game and took it home. You didn't rob someone of their royalties. If you took your friend's game home you would be stealing from your friend who has already bought the game.

Yes I know there's a "Grey Area" around borrowing video games from friends. But if you're using a grey area to defend yourself. Then you don't have a real good reason.

 

[Entitled]

As long as you didn't burn a copy of the game and took it home. You didn't rob someone of their royalties. If you took your friend's game home you would be stealing from your friend who has already bought the game.

Says you.

I think that publishers have equal moral right to ask for money for anyone who experienced the game, therefore yes, I did rob them of their royalties.

Prove that they don't.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

As long as you didn't burn a copy of the game and took it home. You didn't rob someone of their royalties. If you took your friend's game home you would be stealing from your friend who has already bought the game.

Says you.

I think that publishers have equal moral right to ask for money for anyone who experienced the game, therefore yes, I did rob them of their royalties.

Prove that they don't.

Don't be childish.

Remember the days of Demos and *real* beta tests. ( I mean a real beta test one that you could play as long as you like and not just on weekends for 3 days.) You didn't have to pay for those back then. They were free, and no company forced you to buy their product after you beta tested it, or played the demo.

So once again.. your argument is completely worthless.

Also.. you think it's a moral right for company to demand money just because you tried their game? HA. What happens if I didn't like the game and never will play it again after I tested it. I'm not wasting 60 dollars on game I don't like, and the Company shouldn't expect me to pay for a product that I didn't like either.

It's like those employees at the mall who hand out little cups of food so you can try it. They don't demand you to go buy a box of whatever just because you had a taste of it.

 

[Entitled]

Remember the days of Demos and *real* beta tests. ( I mean a real beta test one that you could play as long as you like and not just on weekends for 3 days.) You didn't have to pay for those back then. They were free, and no company forced you to buy their product after you beta tested it, or played the demo.

There are also entire freeware games. Does that make free playing of others OK? Because that's what you are saying here, that since there are OTHER games offering a test, that makes it impossible for testing to be controlled by the publisher.

Also.. you think it's a moral right for company to demand money just because you tried their game? HA. What happens if I didn't like the game and never will play it again after I tested it. I'm not wasting 60 dollars on game I don't like, and the Company shouldn't expect me to pay for a product that I didn't like either.

And what if I pirate the game and then decide a hour later that I don't buy it? How is that robbing, even though I get the same experience, make the same final decision, and have the same financial effect?

Please don't just reply "because it's illegal", legality doesn't define whether something is morally justified.

There are wrong things that are legal, and there are things that are pointlessly kept illegal.

I just don't see how the arguments for whether or not a publisher should have a right to stop you from freely trying their game without their permission and control, are fundamentally different from the arguments for whether or not a publisher should have a right to stop you from downloading a copy of their game.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

Snip

Yay someone to finally argue with! D Although I am not going to write out a big paragraph like you, because I agree with you.

Although I agree with you. I find nothing wrong in torrenting a game just to try it out, and if you like it, buy it. If you don't like it then just delete it. I miss the days of Demos. I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem saying that downloading a game isn't stealing though.

I was a little over-zealous in making my point across. (Common flaw in my behavior I know. :b) But I just wanted to get it out there. That the companies *do* lose money if people downloaded a copy of the game. No matter how small the amount is even 50,000 dollars is a whole year salary to some people.

 

[Ledan]

Regardless of which side of the fence you are... can't we all agree that thousand dollar fines are ridiculous for piracy? You'd be better of shoplifting.

 

[Entitled]

I was a little over-zealous in making my point across. (Common flaw in my behavior I know. :b) But I just wanted to get it out there. That the companies *do* lose money if people downloaded a copy of the game. No matter how small the amount is even 50,000 dollars is a whole year salary to some people.

That's not necessarily true.

Downloading can also lead to extra sales, and not even just in the relatively rare event of conscious "pirating it to try it, then buy later" scenario, but generally by increasing a game's userbase.

Let's say, one game is bought by 1 million people and it has perfect foolproof DRM, while another one has been bought by 1 million, and also played by further 9 million pirates.

What do you think, which one will get more coverage on a gaming site? The one with 10 million readers caring about it's news and clicking on it's headlines, or the one with 1 million? Which one will turn into a household brand that even non-gamers recognize as very popular, and might be the first thing they buy for christmas to their children? Which one will have more threads on these forums, and get recognition as a GOTY, the one that our pirate userbase has to ignore, or the one that every segment of gamers plays?

Now let's look at those sales a few months later. What do you think, which of them will reach 2 million sales later? The one in the headlines, the household brand, the voted GOTY, the one that forums are buzzing with, or the one that succesfully stopped most people from playing it?

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

Yay someone to finally argue with! D Although I am not going to write out a big paragraph like you, because I agree with you.

Although I agree with you. I find nothing wrong in torrenting a game just to try it out, and if you like it, buy it. If you don't like it then just delete it. I miss the days of Demos. I don't have a problem with this. I have a problem saying that downloading a game isn't stealing though.

I was a little over-zealous in making my point across. (Common flaw in my behavior I know. :b) But I just wanted to get it out there. That the companies *do* lose money if people downloaded a copy of the game. No matter how small the amount is even 50,000 dollars is a whole year salary to some people.

Glad I could provide a somewhat mature point, unlike most people here.

I agree with you that there is some loss involved with piracy, how could there not be, but I can't belive that it is anywhere near the amount that is advertised. My gut tells me to just keep an eye out for news on the subject and the image that I've created on the topic, is that there is so far no proof or even hint that a company went belly up due to people just downloading their games.
An example being the THQ CEO who blamed piracy for Titan Quest failing, but being an owner of that game(one that I've regretted), I'd say it's more likely due to the fact it was riddled with bugs and that it came out at a time where every man and his brother were making hack and slash Diablo clones.
Point being that piracy can be a scapegoat for some failures.

You really shouldn't define breach of copyright as stealing, if for nothing else, than the fact that it is by definition not stealing should be enough.
In any other case I wouldn't say this, I wouldn't even care, but in this particular case it is important to distinguish it from stealing, because it carries a far more negative notion than what it really is. Everyone can relate to stealing, but since it's not the same, people shouldn't get the same notion from it.

Call it pirating media, illegal downloads or breach of copyright (which is the correct definition of the crime commited).
We should all strive to go for the facts and debate the possible outcomes and consequences, whether they are negative or positive.

Aye. I don't think a company really loses money over piracy to the amount they claim, but the problem is that.. they *could* lose that amount of money. Companies who make games and blame their failure on piracy need to check themselves. Because if you make a good game you won't have an issue in succeeding. I think a lot of companies are too busy making cash outs, stupid dlc, half-assed games to get a quick dollar while great companies like cd projekt red are making it big because they take their games seriously.

 

[chikusho]

Well unless you're expecting them to essentially have two jobs, that's quite irrelevant. Though I wouldn't be surprised if your sort really expects that artists should work twice as hard to provide something you like while you pay nothing.

I'm not expecting anyone to do anything. People who are passionate about something will do it when they are not working. As I
There's no guarantee that you will have the opportunity to work with what you love, and if you want to take the step towards doing that it will probably mean a hell of a lot more work than two jobs. As I said earlier in this thread:

Some of the greatest artist, scientists, visionaries and thinkers of the history of the world have all been scraping by throughout their entire lives only to be discovered towards the end or even after their death.

And what do you think all currently famous millionare artists were doing before they were "discovered"?

Even if not a single person would receive a single cent for his or her paintings, photos, movies, designs, clothes, games, music, software, inventions, all of these things and more will still be created and spread around, talked about, analysed, studied, and put to use every single day, all over the world for the rest of all humanity. As has been proven throughout history since the dawn of time.

 

[Nielas]

Anyone who makes a good product will be rewarded.

How will they be rewarded? From what source will this monetary reward come from?

Who says it has to be monetary?

Alright, while it's not a 100% thing, it's generally accepted that if you have a brilliant idea it'll go through, be popular and sell well.

I refuse to believe otherwise, but feel free to prove me wrong.

How can it 'sell well' if everyone just downloads/copies it for free?

Anyway, 'ideas' are a dime a dozen. It is hard work that makes them into something that actually has value to people. If that hard work does not pay the bills then smart people will switch to a type of work that does.

 

[Nielas]

Even if not a single person would receive a single cent for his or her paintings, photos, movies, designs, clothes, games, music, software, inventions, all of these things and more will still be created and spread around, talked about, analysed, studied, and put to use every single day, all over the world for the rest of all humanity. As has been proven throughout history since the dawn of time.

I would like to extend that to doctors, teachers, pilots, garbage collectors, etc. If they are passionate about their work they will do it without pay.

 

[Vegosiux]

I would like to extend that to doctors, teachers, pilots, garbage collectors, etc. If they are passionate about their work they will do it without pay.

Well, I will say it must suck if you're only doing your job for the money. But that's the thing here, isn't it, we've created a bit of a false dichotomy, with "only in it for the money" on one side and "not even caring about the money" on the other and just talking about these extremes.

I mean, yeah, gotta pay your bills, but a job is about more than just the number in your bank account at the end of every month...

Oh, and yes, if you're passionate about their work, you'll do it without pay now and then if you need to, and won't lose sleep over it. Note the "now and then". Of course that shouldn't be a common, nor an extended occurrence.

 

[RevRaptor]

I'll settle this with simple math.

*Googles Dark Souls torrent*
*Sees it at 1202 seeders*
*Checks the price on steam which is 40 dollars*
*Adds up the math*

40 x 1202 = 48,080.

that's 48,080 dollars that the company didn't get because people didn't buy the game. This isn't also not counting leechers. So it could be double the money loss, or even triple.

That's (i'm going to round up to 50,000 dollars just because it's easier to say) 50,000 dollars the company didn't get because you choose to "download a copy" of the game. So therefor it's stealing.

I can't believe something so common, and simple needs to be explained.

And yet the stat's don't support that at all, a poll of UK music downloaders showed that people that pirated music tended to spend a lot more on legit purchases.
It's simple human nature If you have to buy everything you will be far less likely to spend your money unless its a sure thing, getting to download it for free broadens your horizons if you will and that makes you more likely to spend cash on the legit product.

I can't believe such a basic thing need to be explained its human behaviour 101.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224460/Illegal-downloaders-spend-MORE-music-obey-law.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

 

[chikusho]

I would like to extend that to doctors, teachers, pilots, garbage collectors, etc. If they are passionate about their work they will do it without pay.

First of all:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
http://www.teacherswithoutborders.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Pilots_Association

Secondly, in all the fields mentioned, people have gone above and beyond what they are "paid to do" in order to be better at their craft, without promise or expectation of an extra penny. There have always been doctors pushing the limits of medicine in order to find cure to any and all ailment, academics who are managing journals, doing research, reviewing other research and innovating in their field, and pilotes who have volunteered to almost suicide-like missions and tests in order to further understanding of aerodynamics and human potential, and this in occupations with a set fee. If you think any of this has to do with _money_, the weakest and most ineffective motivation of all, then I feel sorry for you and your perception of humanity.

 

[Do4600]

Well that's cool and all but people still deserve to be paid for their work.

There is plenty of other ways to get paid. Like donations. Or collecting the money first, Kickstarter style. And there is probably other possible schemes too.

Yeah, or standing on the corner with a guitar and begging.

 

[micahrp]

If all digital content would be open to the public for access, then the Internet as a whole would be a form of public domain. And vice versa, if listening on any open-air performance would be controlled by the artists through law, then the places where these are held would automatically be the artist's private domain.

That's basically my whole argument, that large, non-scarce portions of the Internet (that is, the content on it) SHOULDN'T be locked away as someone's property, but be a public surface, analogous to a street that anyone can walk on, and art and entertainment should exist without limiting my movement on it.

So you are basically just begging the question, by citing how "the street performer is a free speech user in a public setting." but "copyright holders have the right to keep their products private".

It's not so much that I want "this privacy" to be illegal, that I think it shouldn't be considered a form of privacy to begin with. An already released content is already a subject of public discourse, it is lifted into popular culture, and it is naturally accessible through a publically available technology. Therefore, declaring that it is in someone's "privacy rights" to stop others from repeating it, is unfair.

What if we would have the technology to easily create tens of thousands of whales? Would that make whale hunting OK?

What if we would have the cigarettes that don't cause any smell or unhealthy effect to outsiders? Would that make ignoring the public smoking bans OK?

That's the difference between commandments that stem from natural law, and that had been the cornerstone of all civilizations for thousands of years, and legal regulations that exist for a specific practical purpose that may or may not stay relevant on the long term.

Copyright is the latter. It has been written solely because the early modern era's book printing needed to be regulated, and at the time, this appeared to be a simple way to do it.

That's what all the "piracy is theft" comments are about. Trying to associate it with a universal sin, as opposed to the infringement of a regulation that may not even be necesary to begin with.

First off, thank you I actually enjoyed reading this one. I apologize if my posts are like nails on chalkboards.

The internet as public domain would be fully wonderful and totally possible as long as people only upload what they create or have permission to upload. Just convince the copyright holder to upload it publicly.

As for the streets, we do define where the street ends and where individuals lawn starts and if you need grass and trees we have public parks. You don't get to go into someones backyard and start grilling even if their grass is lusher and they have a pool and somehow you have the technology attached to your torso that allows you to walk into their yard.

Since the open air public performance's have been covered as free speech not business, I am taking this as an open air paid performance. How many open air paid performances have no gatekeeping? Or if they do gatekeep, do they maximize the area those gates cover to the point where the sound quality value has diminished enough that they no longer care if someone is listening or beyond that range they will have property problems?

At what point did the product get raised to become public? I still haven't been convinced a private product privately sold to individuals is culture. At what number of individual sales is it no longer private?

What is unfair about stopping them? I hate the word fair. It is not used right and is used too often and is not accompanied by a basis of comparison (thank you Jim Henson, we still miss you). The closest to a basis of comparison you gave is "it is naturally accessible through a publically available technology" so we shouldn't "stop others from repeating it" (I hope you don't mind that quote I believe I kept your thought in tact). My rebuttal is: it wasn't available in the n=1 case. Someone had to be first. So someone uploaded it when it wasn't "naturally available". Or is this an example where the n=1 case is false but the n+1 case and the nth case is true and the principle doesn't violate logic.

I feel as a consumer that I benefitted from them profitting. Also, I guess it is my feelings on work. Those who do the work get the rewards. And I don't believe all work is equal so I suggest sticking to work people want.

As for the whales, I think there would be a point where it would be illegal NOT to hunt whales (I think 500 trillion whales or so would do it, maybe a few less). Every law has breaking points, but until it is shown that every combination of words and notes and color have been made I don't think we've reached it. Some ok threshholds might be: 60,000 words, 10 minutes of standard scale eighth notes or an 11x14 canvas size with the same dpi and palate as a current hd tv. Sorry music you get the short end of the stick, but I hate you. Oh and I guess moving pictures would be covered by the combination of all 3 of those.

Nope, I hate those fake smoking things. My friend has one and it makes my head spin and then later a bit of nausea.